if you ask 100 people what they think of the clash, you'll probably get 100 different answers. the first album, by any standards, is a punk rock gem. they were rushed into doing the second album by CBS. in my opinion, there's about 3 (4 at a push) on GEER. by London calling I reckon they had lost a lot of what made them great. but, I'm not a musician, I don't play anything. I suppose when you've learned your craft you want to see how far you can take it. hated Sandinista and combat rock and don't get me started on cut the crap. but live they were still explosive. only problem was, joe went straight in at 200 mph and by the time they had got to the 5th/6th song he was fucked. but all things said and done, it's 2016 and the fact that the band are still influencing people and we're having this conversation....speaks volumes. vive le clash

You would probably get all the same arguments on a Clash site about The Stranglers .....anyway .....my take on The Clash :
I liked the first 2 albums , a lot don't like "Rope" , the second one , but I still find the first two good decent punk albums - after that , The Clash really moved away from punk big time , they lost any kind of support I had for them as I really don't like all this Spanish- South American funk-disco whatever type stuff ( same with Stranglers - I HATE the jazz stuff but they don't do whole albums of it ) . I remember for years Garry Bushell comparing almost every punk bands first album to The Clash first one , rating it I think he did a san all time best first album in punk circles anyway . Its good - very good indeed - but I think many punk bands have equalled or bettered it over the years. Maybe I was lucky in that I got the US version which appears to have more tracks . I do find The Clash overall very preachy and sloganeering , but I did find the music after Rope pretty shite ( inc London Calling ) - just not my sort of stuff - I think a lot of punks probably gave up on them from that point , maybe we were a bit blinkered in that we felt that punk had to have a certain sound and The Clash by 1980 didn't have that , but neither did The Stranglers by then and I stuck with them - for me after1979 The Clash were of no interest and as much to do with punk as Abba were by then . Not so sure The Clash became what they wanted to replace , but they certainly weren't what they started out as - after 1979/80 you certainly couldn't say they were a punk band, they'd left that far behind .

I was always in to bands' singles rather than albums so it's probably years after they came out that I even heard a full Clash album. 'London Calling' album's my favourite of theirs but it's not a good example of the Clash's roots etc, it's something like 'pop punk' and I only use the word punk there because it's the Clash innit.

I think Strummer proved what a fantastic front man he was, with the Clash and then solo/with Mescaleros, but he was a living contradiction I suppose. And he couldn't be trusted with anyone's girlfriend or wife either! He was also a brilliant writer and vocalist, and the good Clash stuff is superb as is his work after the band. The poorer material is average at best compared to other bands' output but at least their split wasn't particularly acrimonious, unlike 'our' band's (okay, Hugh left, it wasn't a split, you knowwhatImean) and Mick and Joe both released brilliant non-Clash material. Simonon's career has been okay too.

To me the Clash always had a purpose even though I wasn't really with it enough to understand. The Pistols never did have a purpose (their twat manager did of course), The Damned were in it for the laugh and The Stranglers were always superior to 'punk'

'Peaches - A Chronicle of The Stranglers from 1974 to 1990', out 2014 on Soundcheck Books.

I was a Clash fan from Day 1 and still am.
But, as with all the bands I like, I tend to concentrate on the music rather than following all the tittle-tattle and chat about internal squabbles and arguments.
Sometimes you get drawn into conversations and then realise you are rarely going to change another's opinion once it's ingrained and set in stone.
So why bother.

The Stranglers, The Clash, The Damned, The Adverts & TV Smith), The Members, Penetration, Buzzcocks, 999, The Ruts/Ruts DC, Xtc & Andy Partridge, Stiff Little Fingers, The Jam (Paul Weller), Eddie & The Hot Rods....followed all of their musical careers through thick and thin, bought all the music and listen to it all to this day.

People have said I'm stuck in the past but that usually comes from people who don't realise that these bands and artists didn't stop recording once the media messiahs had lost interest.

So, listen to what you like. Others opinions can be interesting but ultimately hold no sway.

Rockula wrote:I was a Clash fan from Day 1 and still am.
But, as with all the bands I like, I tend to concentrate on the music rather than following all the tittle-tattle and chat about internal squabbles and arguments.
Sometimes you get drawn into conversations and then realise you are rarely going to change another's opinion once it's ingrained and set in stone.
So why bother.

The Stranglers, The Clash, The Damned, The Adverts & TV Smith), The Members, Penetration, Buzzcocks, 999, The Ruts/Ruts DC, Xtc & Andy Partridge, Stiff Little Fingers, The Jam (Paul Weller), Eddie & The Hot Rods....followed all of their musical careers through thick and thin, bought all the music and listen to it all to this day.

People have said I'm stuck in the past but that usually comes from people who don't realise that these bands and artists didn't stop recording once the media messiahs had lost interest.

So, listen to what you like. Others opinions can be interesting but ultimately hold no sway.

I liked most of the early punk bands but most one way or another either moved on or quit very quickly . The second ( ie UK Subs , Sham etc ) and third ( Blitz , Chron Gen etc )waves mainly stayed true to their beginnings. I think its because at the start it was arty people who jumped onto something new , but later the people who bought into it made their own bands BECAUSE of what they'd seen, heard and liked and in a way followed a blueprint - punk did become stereotyped - I now because I did really ( leather , painted , spikes/Mohican , bondage trousers) . The first bands had other influences whether it be blues , rock n roll or whatever , but the later bands were following the early works of the first punks and trying to be harder versions of that ( ie Crass, Conflict , Exploited ) . Whereas many of the originals had success or changed and became successful , I don't think th elater bands were that intested in chart success outside of the punk fans following them , it certainly wasn't music that was aimed at success . I liked both/all versions of punk from 77-85 - I did find the later bands more "honest" , but the earlier one's were more intelligent and inventive.